The Boston Business Journal reports that two groups active in fighting gentrification have asked the Trump administration to hold up any federal housing funds for Boston because of what it says are inadequate efforts to involve Spanish-speaking residents in planning for the proposed 10,000-unit residential component of the massive Suffolk Downs project.

Sanders, running in the Democratic primary next week, immediately jumped into the fray over the project, which would replace the shuttered, 160-acre Suffolk Downs racetrack on the Boston/Revere line:

We need affordable housing for all instead of more gentrifying luxury developments for the few. I stand with the longtime residents of East Boston fighting displacement from the communities they have spent generations building.

Lawyers for Civil Rights filed the complaint for City Life/Vida Urbana and Green Roots, over the roughly 70% of the units that would be built on the Boston side of the land.

In addition to the residential units on the 160 acre site, developer HYM is also proposing roughly 5.2 million square feet of office space, roughly half in Boston, as well as a new mall and hotel rooms.

In all seriousness- I agree that MA residents should have better access to all types of housing. That’s why we engaged in a year long community driven process and collaborated with many stakeholders to make one of the largest developments in MA history a reality.

And finally just to be clear - Suffolk Downs is 1/3 in my city. Being an executive means making decisions that require compromise - nobody got everything they wanted but the end result was a positive for the community.

Good evening this is the district city councilor from East Boston. Don't worry @BernieSanders I have a PLAN FOR THAT!

So, yeah, you can probably guess who Edwards is supporting on Tuesday. But she continues:

Last May, I filed a comment with the Boston Planning and Development Agency asking the agency and developer to amend plans to address fair housing concerns and ensure that as we create a new neighborhood we build for all of East Bostonians. ...

I also introduced a zoning change to further fair housing and put racial equity in Boston's zoning code last April. We had a hearing in November and another one today.

Thomas O'Brien, HYM's managing director - and a onetime executive director of the BRA - responded as well, in a statement:

We agree that Boston needs more affordable housing. That’s why our plans for Suffolk Downs will create the largest amount of affordable housing ever created by a single project in Massachusetts. The project includes 10,000 new housing units, with 20% affordable overall, while creating 14,000 union jobs. And by redeveloping a shuttered horse racing track, we are adding to the communities of East Boston and Revere without displacing a single resident.

Not taking sides here, but the West End isn't the only kind of displacement. By creating a new neighborhood of well off residents (even with the 20% affordable quotient, higher than required by the city), you potentially encourage people in surrounding blocks to upgrade and sell their properties or dramatically raise their rents, which leads to displacement, which spreads and pretty soon you've got an entirely new set of people living in the neighborhood. That's basically what happened in the South End (well, without the 10,000-unit mega-development next door), and is what's happening at the other end of East Boston (although there it's a mixture of both physical replacement of buildings and rapidly increasing rents).

but by that argument, they'd be better off letting no one build there at all, lest whatever get built be something more popular than an abandoned race track and thus leading to higher property values in the area. Surely stopping all development isn't the answer here?

The people in surrounding blocks are mostly a few single-family houses on the side of Orient Heights and … some gas tanks.

The South End and Eastie are getting more expensive in part because there aren't 10,000 units here for people to live in, and also, when someone can't afford the South End or Eastie, there's nowhere for them to go.

Real estate listings on Zillow for the area around Orient Heights show almost nothing under half a million and the one listing at $350K is for a studio with less than 600 sq. ft. Eagle Hill and Jeffries Point are even worse, and a fair bit of that stuff can be a long hike or bus ride from the T. Need something more affordable? Try Chelsea, Revere, or Lynn... for now.

People also upgrade / sell / condo-ize / raise rents when a dire housing shortage causes a ton of upward pressure on prices. That’s what’s happening in, well, pretty much every single neighborhood in Boston and the surrounding towns.

So if we’re going to try to shoehorn some hypothetical second-order effects into the (previously well-defined) meaning of “displacement,” let’s at least consider that the alternative is no better, and probably worse.

Millionaires don't have trouble finding housing because real estate is auctioned off to the highest bidder and they can outbid everyone else for whatever's for sale.

I don't understand how people look at 1000 sqft 3-decker units going for $500k+ and conclude "well it would be way cheaper if not for these other new buildings over here." That's not how it works, at all.

Those three decker units went for $100K just 20 years ago, before the neighborhood was fully gentrified. You can't say it's just inflation because everything else doesn't cost 5x as much over that period - and wages certainly have not quintupled either. While the new buildings are not the only cause, they are certainly a factor.

20 years ago (well, 18, the 2000 census) Boston's population was stable. It had fallen by 30% from 1950 to 1980 (801k to 562k) and had grown by 2% each decade since, and was at 589k. The city and nearby region had enough housing for about that many people (somewhat less available in the city given decreases in household sizes as well as urban "redevelopment" of dense neighborhoods like the West End in the '50s and '60s) so there was about enough supply for demand. So if you wanted a floor of a three-decker in Dorchester or JP or Rozzie, there was market equilibrium. If you wanted a fancy-schmancy row house in Back Bay, you had to pay: there has always been less real estate in Back Bay than people who want to live in Back Bay, so prices have always been high.

What's happened since then?

The city has grown by 18%. We've gone from 2% growth per decade to 1% growth per year, and it's only accelerated: the city has grown by 12.5% since 2010 alone, nearly a tenfold increase in the rate of growth. Housing stock has not kept up, not in the city, and certainly not in nearby cities and towns which could absorb some of the demand. There are more people who want to live in the city than homes available so, surprise, surprise, prices have gone up. And when there is a limited supply of something, prices don't go up linearly, they spike. Elasticity is a thing, and the elasticity of demand for housing is very inelastic: there are no substitute goods for housing (well there are, but they require moving out of the area).

Let's put it this way: let's say that Massachusetts drivers use 1 million gallons of gas per day. And let's say that there is a gas shortage, and all of the sudden there are only 900,000 gallons of gas available, a 10% decrease. Do prices rise by just 10%? No, because the demand for gasoline is quite inelastic. People can't just get a much more fuel efficient car, or stop driving to work or to pick up their kids at school. Prices probably double before 10% of people find other ways to get around.

This is what has happened with housing, but the other way around. 10% more people have moved in, but there isn't more housing. And like putting gas in their car, people need a roof over their head. The options are to pay a lot of money for housing, drive a long way to get to/from the jobs and services they need, or go homeless. A few people have the resources to the former. A lot of people do the middle option, hence the congestion issue. And yes, some people are forced into the latter group.

Or, we can pretend that there has been no change in the supply/demand equation and the evil developers of ye olde three-deckers (who all died a century ago, by the way) have conspired to raise the prices. Or whatever.

Cash sales are preferred by many sellers - such as when you have three siblings who grew up in a home but all all live out of state now and have to get the cash to settle the probate.

Most of what is called "gentrification" isn't the result of people buying in - it is the result of elderly people passing on and then having the courts put terms and conditions on the sale of the property that favor flippers and developers.

Other, more convenient neighborhoods like the South End, Southie, JP, etc. were more affordable. Heck, 25 years ago you could still rent a 2BR in the Back Bay for $1,000/mo.

The overall number of high-paying jobs in the urban core has increased quite significantly in the past few decades.

Broad socioeconomic trends have made cities more attractive places to live -- in places where city leaders have managed to get serious quality-of-life crime (i.e. murder, muggings) under control. Boston, NYC, DC, SF, yes. Detroit or Baltimore? Not so much.

"well it would be way cheaper if not for these other new buildings over here." - that's exactly how property prices work. That's why rents go up across entire neighborhoods. When people with money move in neighborhoods become "desirable", more restaurants open because of the influx of wealthy customers, and as rents rise poorer people are pushed out - raising a neighborhood's perceived "desirability" even more. This is the same reason property owners get so upset about neglected houses and vacant lots - adjacent property has enormous effect on their property value.

That's basically what happened in the South End (well, without the 10,000-unit mega-development next door)

Adam, that's not how the South End gentrified. The South End saw very little new housing production from the 80s through early 00s but rapidly gentrified anyway. People with money did buy up the brownstones and renovate them but none of that was caused by new housing around them. You had deflated real estate prices in an area close to downtown, it was inevitable. Those renovations brought on higher demand to live there as the perception of the "area improving" took hold, which raised prices in the absence of new supply to offset it. Study after study of actual research shows that not building new housing, even market rate, exacerbates gentrification in communities. What you are describing is an incorrect if widespread belief about the causes of gentrification not based in evidence.

Yes, you're right about the South End. I was reacting to the statement that Suffolk Downs isn't gentrification because no buildings are being torn down, and saying that, in fact, gentrification can occur just with existing buildings - like in the South End (or along Centre Street in HP).

In the case of Suffolk Downs, no residential buildings are being torn down, yet it could spur gentrification beyond its property lines.

But it's not really next to anything that's affordable now. Orient Heights and Beachmont aren't cheap, and there are pricey-looking rental units already built and going up across Revere Beach Pkwy from Suffolk Downs. Can't really gentrify the oil tanks or Belle Isle Marsh, either (although I could see the oil tanks disappearing in a couple of decades).

Who gentrified the SE and were, for the most part, peacefully cohabiting with all sorts of mixed income and other demographics in the neighborhood.

Ultimately, AIDS robbed us of this generation and their relatives/estates etc started selling for then unheard of prices as developers were simultaneously swooping in. The moderate income gays who lived in the hood were then also priced out and hence we have Dorchester and a bit of Southie today.

And don't forget the thousands of jobs that will be created with construction, then offices filled with people WORKING. But hey, I'm sure Bernie and his bros can find a private developer to build thousands of affordable housing units in one of the most expensive states, with highest barriers to entry, and sky high construction costs. Oh and not make a reasonable profit for their investors.

Gotta low it when a career politician weighs in on development, having never built anything. Classic

I lived in Vermont before I moved to the Boston area a little more than 40 years ago, and Bernie was already a familiar name in Vermont politics, though in those days he was a perpetual loser. He finally became mayor of Burlington in 1981. He's 78 now, so he's spent half his life in office. I call that a career.

Are not reason enough to support construction anytime anywhere with no consideration for the neighborhoods and stakeholder communities affected (that does not include out-of-state investors pumping oil money into EB).

But I asked a union carpenter that was striking/protesting what their hourly rate was and whatever he told me I remember saying "that's like double what a BPS teacher makes" and walking away. BPS teachers make $100k per year ($50 per hour at 2000 hours per year) now on average for current reference.

High end housing units which Eastie is getting a massive amount of drives up rents. It’s not that folks are being evicted from Suffolk Downs except for the grooms folks who were seasonal. And for the record, Revere did not want a lot of housing.

If they did, they'd know that the only people displaced at Suffolk Downs were a few degenerate gamblers in Members Only jackets. Not like you'll see Bernie pressing the flesh at Jeveli's this weekend. He'll be a little busy being deified on the Common this weekend by half of Allston and Somerville.

And no i am not Hispanic, but , I put a lot of work in there and it would be nice if we the former employees get ahead of the line or at least a serious consideration into obtaining housing. I know I've earned that much.

Because you know they never got paid what they should have been paid for their jobs. Thus they are owed something in a fair society. I don't understand why you don't like socialism, which is an attempt to make society fairer.

At least by one measure. They went out of business (although, granted, that was probably a far greater function of falling demand than mismanagement of the business). Maybe they should have been paid more - but a) over the last 10 -20 years of the life of the biz, they probably couldn't afford it and b) you can go find another job that pays better if you are not paid fairly.

Neither does capitalism. Socialized services ensure that everyone gets access to things (like public schools). It's a frivolous exercise to argue with someone who is just going to label something as "socialist/bad" disingenuously, though.

I am failing to see the connection between old Suffolk Downs and the new development team. They purchased the site, and are developing it. Why should former employees get preferential treatment for a completely unrelated endeavor?

If I worked at a supermarket, and it is now a hotel, should I get a discount room?

Even aside from looking at who's in charge in Washington now, there hasn't been any major federal funds for new subsidized housing in a long time. Has nothing to do with who represents the neighborhood in Washington.

Or maybe you've been awake the whole time and just object to black people in positions of power.

Intended to write about transportation funding and the link to affordable housing. If the T were expanded to serve more further-out areas more frequently, there would automatically be more housing stock, more affordable housing stock, and less displacement.

And the only objection to Pressley would be the fact that Capuano was supposedly next in line to an influential position on the Transportation Committee. Now, the 20-year timer starts again.

Bernie is consistently bad on housing. He wants national rent control that not only ignores problems with rent control but differences between regions and communities. He backs NIMBY movements and candidates across the country. This is a good example.

The Suffolk Downs proposal is not displacing any housing, it is creating an outlet for tremendous demand that is pushing up prices in Eastie's existing housing stock. Cllr. Edwards and others have negotiated it up to 20% income-restricted affordable. Go beyond that and developers simply won't build. Yes they are greedy, but they are taking on risk and their investors won't back a charity effort.

Bernie's Democratic Socialist fans say that's okay, all housing should be "social" (ie public) housing anyway. How long do they think it will take before we can nationalize housing production, after we get through nationalizing health care? It would take hundreds of billions of dollars just to renovate the dilapidated public housing we already have, and trillions more to build it for everyone else. To oppose all private housing is simple NIMBYism, which is why leftists and house-rich homeowners so often join forces to block new housing.

They made their concerns known and the housing advocate who is their city councilor got the project up to 20% affordable. Now they want to block the whole project and worsen the displacement crisis in their neighborhood. And the local homeowners who benefit from this massive unearned wealth spike are cheering them on.

As a poor person national rent control would mean increased freedom of movement. As it is it is increasingly difficult for working class people to be able relocate to the increasingly concentrated job centers.

I'm one of President Trump's many solid supporters in MA, not enrolled in either party, wavering on whether to vote Trump on Tuesday or give Bernie a vote and help provide the numbers to make it harder for the Democrat establishment to take it away from him, again. Everybody loves an underdog, especially when panicked Dems and their media brethren are dumping all over him. The only thing keeping me from early voting Bernie is the opportunity to take a Republican ballot to prevent Baker from controlling the Republican State Committee. Warren's lack of any organization in her home state shows a real vulnerability for her in 2024, not necessarily from the weak MA Republican party but from her fellow Democrats. Looking forward to Super Tuesday and the aftermath.

being unenrolled is a sorry joke. The GOP is the party of Trump; Trump is the GOP.

If you’re not a millionaire, they’re not your friends: you’re being played. I understand why you might think they’re on your side. It’s an ancient con, an effective one, especially on old working-class white guys. (No shade there: that’s where I’m from.)

My dad watched Fox News late in life, also became angry and bitter — a smart man who became senselessly bigoted and irrational on a steady diet of partisan disinformation. That’s half the country now. Propaganda: it works.

(it's called " being registered" btw you dolt) for either party, then you won't be voting for ANYONE in the primaries. Hate to break it to you. More evidence that you are either totally ignorant or completely full of crap.

That's not how it works in Massachusetts. Somebody who's not enrolled in a party CAN vote in a primary - they just have to choose which one at the polls. You might want to use the Googles before getting in somebody's grill like that.

Look deeper into other projects, actual luxury projects, and look who supported getting away with less affordable housing.... the same group who is screaming to block Suffolk Downs.... also look into who got donations from those developers... it’s not the affordable housing that is worrying anyone, is the fact that Suffolk Downs won’t give them money directly! That’s what a real reporter should look into!

The end goal of a group like City Life is to have no new market rate housing built in the city. They fundamentally do not believe in it. They demanded that only 100% affordable housing be allowed on Washington St in JP. They protested and interrupted meetings until they got the City to finally agree to an affordability threshold in that area so high that it prevents most new housing construction there unless it's heavily subsidized with public funds. And that is exactly the point. They are not interested in the construction of new housing, full stop.

Technically speaking, Bernie is not a Boomer. He was born in 1941. The acknowledged first year of Boomer births as 1946. This makes him a member of the so-called "Greatest Generation", and I do stress "so-called".

Part of the new "hate the Boomers" trend is the lumping in of all older people as "Boomers", regardless of if they actually are or not. This encompasses the remaining "Greatest Generation" folks, as well as some on the older end of Gen X. This is the other end of the generalizing all people, say under 40, as "Millennials".

I think that unsurpassable vapidity, "The Greatest Generation", was applied by Tom Brokaw to people that grew up in the Great Depression and fought in World War II. Bernie, who was born in 1941, doesn't qualify.

Of all the categories that humans have invented and imposed upon themselves, "generations" are among the most useless.

Yet you are opposed to 10,000 units of housing being created out of essentially an open field.

There is a fundamental logic flaw in this set of statements.

Let's assume further that you as the NIMBY and current local renter -- want to make sure that the neighboring houses and 3 Deckers aren't going to be priced out of your range.

So now you oppose the production of housing, which even if it is not in your price range, will put downward pressure on the surrounding multifamily houses and small apartment blocks -- that just doesn't make much sense.

The growth in population due to the economic dynamism in the region is already putting pressure on the supply of multifamily houses and small apartments from which pool you can find a place to rent. Do nothing and they will continue to appreciate in value and result in higher rents. Now instead -- if someone drops 10,000 units of multifamily housing next door -- the reaction of the owners of the existing older multifamily units will either be to sell-out, or else they will be forced into existing in a market favoring renters.

Indeed if anyone should be complaining about the development -- it is the owners of the near-by apartment buildings. They will face stiff competition for tenants as lacking Amazon II -- there is no really compelling reason why someone should want to live in Suffolk except for the availability of a large pool of newly constructed residences.

Its amazing how the lack of just a small amount of logic and some basic arithmetic skill converts adults into blithering idiots, or Sander's supporters.

City Life and Green Roots are not Bernie bros, they are important community organizations. the former has helped keep countless people in their homes who have faced evictions. they are not mansplaining. your selective identity politics is gross.